User talk:MaxCaulfield
RE: Incivility and off-topic violations I think you're making more out of this than is necessary. I interpreted what you said as rude because you said he either had a bad memory or his exploration ability was lacking. OP interpreted it as rude, I interpreted it as rude, you did not. Fine, that's a difference of opinion, but you typed out a paragraph that only served to derail the thread of its intended topic. So again, it was off-topic and I pointed it out. In terms of etiquette, just be as polite and civil as possible. Social cues are another thing to look for. OP said your comment was rude so that was a clear sign that perhaps you should have backed up or refrained from approaching the subject further. Generally speaking, using common sense is a good way to go about it. If something like this happens in the future, it's not a big deal. I just gave you a nudge back to the topic, it didn't need to become a complicated discussion and you weren't in trouble. All I said was to get back on topic and that should have been the end of it. For future reference, just accept a mod's final say and we can all move on. Have a good rest of your day. --Steele-Wool (talk) 00:12, October 9, 2019 (UTC) RE: Incivility and off-topic violations Again, you are creating more out of yesterday's situation than was ever needed. It's true I interpreted you as a bit rude, but mainly your comment was deleted because it was off-topic and could have possibly coaxed OP into a whole other debate with you. I've seen things like that escalate quickly before, so I was nipping it in the bud. I can't possibly explain to you, and the guidelines/rules could never realistically outline, the exact specifications for civil etiquette and rules you desire to have laid out. I think you're over thinking way too much. As I've said before, this was not a big deal and the only reason it seems so is because you insist on making it so. The admins put the mods in charge specifically so we can resolve a situation with our own judgement in terms of using the guidelines as a basis, and I honestly don't think it's necessary to bother them with something so trivial. I'm sorry if this is unsatisfying to you, but I now consider the matter closed. --Steele-Wool (talk) 16:29, October 9, 2019 (UTC) :I'm just a Discussions Mod, I have no power whatsoever when it comes to creating the rules and guidelines of the Wiki itself. I just do my best to monitor the Discussions and enforce the guidelines as-is, which has worked out well for us. :Surprisingly, Ursuul, one of the Admins, got wind of all the messages you've sent me. He had some things to say and has given his permission for me to relay this message: :"I understand your desire for more elaborate guidelines & I appreciate your aim to improve Discussions, but we & the Administrators intend to keep guidelines concise so that they can be quickly understood by newcomers & not seem daunting. We cannot be expected to map out every nuance of etiquette, & instead opt to trust our visitors to use their own common sense to the best of their ability. Moderators will continue to be available to clarify or issue polite warnings when different interpretations of common sense clash, & under this model we have seen successes that we are fully satisfied with at this time." :--Steele-Wool (talk) 21:23, October 9, 2019 (UTC) RE: Vagueness of Guidelines Hello! Behaving according to one’s own general notion of decency is intended, because as a baseline that is sufficient for the vast majority of Discussions interactions. In rare cases where that fails, Moderators are trusted users who can clarify & make final judgments. Discrimination against protected groups, off-topic, & name calling (lack of politeness) are all broadly covered by already, & seeing as we’ve not had issues of serious alienation in the years we have operated this way, we are not interested in being more exacting at this time (although we’re always happy to clarify if you are confused!). As for your confusion now, posts may be deleted to head off a continuation into off topic territory, either so that a Mod can issue a polite warning or for whatever other reason they deem fit to ensure the health of a conversation. If indeed you were not punished or even politely asked to stop, then the Moderator was simply trying to keep things on topic in a way that they thought fitting at the time, nothing personal. Seeing as you actually understand that what was deleted was partially off topic, then avoiding such violations in general is a surefire method to avoid the inconvenience of post deletion. Posts might not always be deleted if you don’t do that, but really we all just want a cool & respectful place to talk about Dragon Age, so it’s the polite thing for everyone to do. Mods are accountable to Admins who are accountable to editors & Fandom Staff. If you feel a Mod is making bad calls often, or acting in bad faith as you describe, you’re welcome to bring that up for more serious review. While you’re correct that it’s their interpretation of norm, Mods were selected & remain so because they have sound judgment, so that’s acceptable to us & most users (who selected most of our Mods & all Admins). That’s why we ask that you simply take their advice, e.g. if they recommend you stop a murder convo. As for the incident with Steele, I did explain before that not every violating post will be removed, but that you can very nearly guarantee not having yours removed by steering away from off-topic, etc. Since you can take matters into your own hands, we are hesitant to implement more restrictive guidelines that might reduce the quality of moderation or understandability for the majority of people. To clarify, I said accountable to Admins, not that Admins hold them to predefined standards. If Admins act badly (e.g. favoritism), editors can remove them too. Our ‘voting system’ is built on consensus. We don’t intend to be excessively strict with you, but we will enforce rules. Again, we do not feel the issues of ‘vague’ outlines to be frequent enough to warrant change, & prefer Mods use their good judgment instead of predetermined responses. As for bans, they require Admin approval & are more strenuous; if two people deserve bans, both will get them I assure you, but otherwise we try to do only the minimum intervention required by circumstance; we don’t like deleting & locking. I understand you disagree with a lack of rigid methodology, but we (Admins/Mods) still prefer everyone to be accountable to people, as the cost of change is not little. Despite your concern over potential abuses, Admins & the public can identify them using their own judgment (latter via consensus) & we have had vanishingly few of them. There is no rigid criteria; that’s intentional to allow good judgment to supersede. Consensus is unlikely to change, being the core of Wiki decision-making. If there’s no consensus for a proposal (e.g. remove an Admin), nothing happens. Eliminating good judgment decision-making is not acceptable. Yes, consensus requires agreement, but widespread dissatisfaction is typically the only time rights removals are needed. As Fandom Staff don’t allow Admins/Mods to obstruct consensus, it is always achievable. My talk page is always open, but I don’t intend to reiterate ad infinitum. My role is to explain, not to argue merits. We intend no changes at this time. I have spent this entire conversation explaining the rationale. I’m sorry if you feel the system is flawed, but having no firm rules is intended & has served us well over the years. I never gave 80% as a figure, only Wiki-style consensus. I’m also not here to field increasingly unlikely hypotheticals. To reiterate: our judgment-based system has had few issues if any, being minor & easily resolved, & it allows flexible decision-making with accountability too. Again, I’m here to expain, not debate counterarguments.